|
This one is the latest book to take on the resurrection of Jesus, by a scholar who could be regarded as being in the middle of the ideological pack -- not Gerd Ludemann, but not William Lane Craig. As a whole it is a very good assessment of the evidence for and against the resurrection. Because I've had some questions about the content, I'll break with the usual narrative format of review and comment on specific pages.
36-7 -- Allison's answer to verses like Luke 14:26, that they are "unique demands he placed upon his closest followers," while not disagreeable, seems to not account for the use of extreme language by persons with dramatic orientations.
42 -- On the other hand, Allison's dismissal of passages like John 14:6 is given without adequate reason; merely saying it too "loaded" for Jesus to have said merely assumes what needs to be proved. Sayings like John 14:6 are not beyond what could be shared with an inner circle of confidants.
As a whole, his warnings to observe context and be wary of what we have lost of it [84] are well taken, but have too much the scent of a depressed panic button. One is hard pressed to find any significant practical change in meaning between Jesus using hell to "motivate sympathizers" and using it to "induce the undecided to obedience." In all likelihood even as today, it would have been used to do both and the only real difference would be one of choice of words or tone in presentation. Meanwhile the base concepts (hell exists, for example) remain the same no matter who the message is given to. (One does wonder [94] what Allison would make of the idea of hell as a state of shame and not a place of torture, and [114, 147] of preterism as solutions to the quandries he poses.)
The last part of the book is the only part directly concerned with the Resurrection. Readers will find some of the same issues addressed as in the recent Skeptical work The Empty Tomb. Allison discusses tomb robbery by sorcerors briefly [202f] but his conclusions are not to the depth of our own.
I find it somewhat unfortunate that Allison resorts to what is in essence personal testimony [214f] as his main reason for believing in the resurrection. These are fine but do not have any place in apostolic preaching which stressed the evidence of things like the empty tomb (Acts 2, etc.). They should be regarded as a supplement to, nor our main argument for, Christianity.
Allison is unnecessarily befuddled by the technical aspects of resurrection [224]. Things like the "cannibal conundrum" are a non-issue; if we wish to take that tack, why not say that a resurrection body is essentially "cloned" from any preserved and independent material? Is this too hard for a God who creates ex nihilo and performed the conception of Jesus by fiat? (He will find his reason for a return to the old body, to some extent, in Semitic Totality, and in the matter of how the Jews viewed personal identity: The body and the spirit were a properly unified whole that belonged together to form a unit.)
What Allison says of group hallucination [283f], we might relate as well to our recent guest item on the subject.
Allison's argument that Matt. 28:11-15 is of lesser value because the age of it is "unknown" of course assumes a late date for Matthew. There is no reason not to see it as an authentic understanding that came about early, indeed within the first few years after Jesus' resurrection.
Allison ends up deciding in favor of the resurrection. That said, I find some of his arguments (not all of them) for devaluing positive arguments for it at times a little too contrived and a little too reliant on the "what if" method of dealing with arguments, which is a way of saying that the evidence itself isn't cooperating. This is worthwhile to acquire as a sharpening tool for serious apologists.
|
